[jwalsh07]

Are you saying, then, that a wheat genome is not "intelligently designed" until after Monsanto alters it?

LOL, I take it you didn't like the previous answer. I don't know but more than that I don't really care. Mechanisms are small stuff. I'm a big picture kind of guy and in my big picture, God did it all. How God does things is up to God.

As the theory of evolution makes no such claim, I do not understand the relevance of your question.

That's because you are a one note Dimensio, stuck in a box of your own making. ToE is your Holy Grail, not mine. The relevance is simply this, if you live by falsifiability you die by falsifiability. Abiogenesis can not be science and as such, according to that icon of the Darwinian Judge Jones, it should never enter the realm of science. Yet it does!

And I support that but you and Judge Jones to be consistent must oppose it. Ah the irony.

[Dimensio]

LOL, I take it you didn't like the previous answer. I don't know but more than that I don't really care.

It is not a question of dislike. It is an important factor to note. Whether or not the genome is intelligently designed calls into question whether or not the "design" of Monsanto can be detected.

That's because you are a one note Dimensio, stuck in a box of your own making.

I fail to see how understanding the specific defined scope of the theory of evolution has me "stuck in a box".

The relevance is simply this, if you live by falsifiability you die by falsifiability. Abiogenesis can not be science and as such, according to that icon of the Darwinian Judge Jones, it should never enter the realm of science. Yet it does!

This is a misstatement of science. Explanations presented as scientific theories must be falsifiable. If they are not, then they cannot be considered more than hypothesis. I am aware of no one who presents abiogenesis as a scientific theory.